Hobbes and Locke and Looting.
In class, we did some Hobbes and Locke comparison: whose State of Nature was better, what Reason meant to both of their arguments, how nice or not nice each one’s god was. I think that, in most ways, Locke’s observations were much more appealing than Hobbes. I mean, I would prefer a friendly God (because, I think one really must have one for either of their grand schemes to work), it would be nice if government could be dissolved back to a livable state of nature (rather than complete anarchy), and it’s much more comforting to not think of yourself as just the sum of many equations but rather having a mind/reason inspired by God (again, I’m beginning to think that God is a need for Lockean government/social structure).
However, being a person who distrusts the nice shiny view of society, as sometimes the most appealing option is not the best, I wonder which of these two philosophers are really most onto society and its needs. I understand that they are on the same, liberal team, but they have such different fundamental understandings upon which they base their propositions (fictional and for modeling purposes only, as I am also learning).
Hobbes is concerned mostly with society having a way to get out of the state of warre (p. 93). This is about the worst thing ever, and Hobbes models it as the anarchy we have seen in places like post-Katrina New Orleans, where the structure of society has failed to function and people are in a constant state of survival (and not sleeping). People have no way to even think about possessions until the social contract to a sovereign (see page 70: “In such a condition [of warre], there is no place for industry” and because they sleep). His Sovereign keeps people in line because they all agree that they need to be kept in line for the good of the whole. Since people are secure, they should be happy under the sovereign, and, of course, have no way out.
Locke, on the other hand, is mostly focused on property. Although property does involve self (as Locke is just as keen as Hobbes to define everything), it is also possible BEFORE official social-government contracts. Unlike Hobbes, there is the pre-existing social structure we talked about in class, one that has money and the possibility of trade, just no way to preserve ownership. So this social contract is designed purely for the preservation of possession (again, including self). The ego-centricity of people under Locke’s system is intriguing: they have to fully give themselves to their supreme leader, but they also have ways out; their entire agreement is kind of for the good of the community, but is mostly for the good of themselves; everyone is specifically given reign over their own property, even little children. I have a feeling that the Rousseauean idea of the state of nature being entirely anti-social stems from Locke’s creation of an enforced social structure based upon every man/woman having individual possessions and undisputed right to them. Locke’s shiny description of State of Nature is very much like Hobbes’s, except people have figured out how to be possessive of themselves and their apple trees.
In his state of nature (if state of nature is applied to post-Katrina New Orleans), though, I think the looting would be slightly less, mostly because Locke’s people would be reasoning whereas Hobbes’s people would be trying to get everything they could hold until they fell asleep. I still think Locke’s people might not even take more than one pair of shoes from the flooded shoe store, whereas Hobbes’s would probably take many. Although both would be looting, Locke’s people might reason more that everyone was entitled to just what they need, but Hobbes’s would be very pro taking everything they wanted.
That said, I was watching Miracle on 34th Street (probably WAY too early in the fall season), and it made me smile when Mara Wilson’s character (yes, the remake), brought the judge a card in which there was a dollar bill with the words “In God We Trust” circled in a festive red. It reminded me that we are SO Lockean (excepting that children having rights to their own property, which seems to be a big problem for those children who actually have property independent of their parents (ie. Child stars) who are seemingly always in lawsuits over their rightful belongings – to make the parenthetical longer, I will cite “Paternal Power is where minority makes the child incapable to manage his property” (Locke, 384). Very interesting that he chooses to use the active verb “to make,” even after he says specifically that “The Power of the Father doth not reach at all to the Property of the Child, which is only in his own disposing” (Locke, 381).), and also made me think about the topic of money that we touched upon in class. Money (or shiny rocks) is not a possession according to Locke, because it requires no energy (labor) to acquire, and yet we agree that it has great worth. I don’t think that money (or shiny rocks) would work for atheists if they were to seriously consider the implication of money as purely a representation of something else. The words on our dollar remind us that we, as a country (a Lockean one) believe in something of which we have no evidence, just as we believe that money (a piece of paper or a shiny rock, even a business card sized piece of plastic) exists. The fact that I can hand someone a dollar bill conveys to them the idea that I have labored at something, and the bill is a representation of that I posess (from my labor). However, my ownership of the bill itself could be disputed – but thanks to Locke and his tremendous influence on our fair government, that dispute (or war) would have a fathomable end.
However, being a person who distrusts the nice shiny view of society, as sometimes the most appealing option is not the best, I wonder which of these two philosophers are really most onto society and its needs. I understand that they are on the same, liberal team, but they have such different fundamental understandings upon which they base their propositions (fictional and for modeling purposes only, as I am also learning).
Hobbes is concerned mostly with society having a way to get out of the state of warre (p. 93). This is about the worst thing ever, and Hobbes models it as the anarchy we have seen in places like post-Katrina New Orleans, where the structure of society has failed to function and people are in a constant state of survival (and not sleeping). People have no way to even think about possessions until the social contract to a sovereign (see page 70: “In such a condition [of warre], there is no place for industry” and because they sleep). His Sovereign keeps people in line because they all agree that they need to be kept in line for the good of the whole. Since people are secure, they should be happy under the sovereign, and, of course, have no way out.
Locke, on the other hand, is mostly focused on property. Although property does involve self (as Locke is just as keen as Hobbes to define everything), it is also possible BEFORE official social-government contracts. Unlike Hobbes, there is the pre-existing social structure we talked about in class, one that has money and the possibility of trade, just no way to preserve ownership. So this social contract is designed purely for the preservation of possession (again, including self). The ego-centricity of people under Locke’s system is intriguing: they have to fully give themselves to their supreme leader, but they also have ways out; their entire agreement is kind of for the good of the community, but is mostly for the good of themselves; everyone is specifically given reign over their own property, even little children. I have a feeling that the Rousseauean idea of the state of nature being entirely anti-social stems from Locke’s creation of an enforced social structure based upon every man/woman having individual possessions and undisputed right to them. Locke’s shiny description of State of Nature is very much like Hobbes’s, except people have figured out how to be possessive of themselves and their apple trees.
In his state of nature (if state of nature is applied to post-Katrina New Orleans), though, I think the looting would be slightly less, mostly because Locke’s people would be reasoning whereas Hobbes’s people would be trying to get everything they could hold until they fell asleep. I still think Locke’s people might not even take more than one pair of shoes from the flooded shoe store, whereas Hobbes’s would probably take many. Although both would be looting, Locke’s people might reason more that everyone was entitled to just what they need, but Hobbes’s would be very pro taking everything they wanted.
That said, I was watching Miracle on 34th Street (probably WAY too early in the fall season), and it made me smile when Mara Wilson’s character (yes, the remake), brought the judge a card in which there was a dollar bill with the words “In God We Trust” circled in a festive red. It reminded me that we are SO Lockean (excepting that children having rights to their own property, which seems to be a big problem for those children who actually have property independent of their parents (ie. Child stars) who are seemingly always in lawsuits over their rightful belongings – to make the parenthetical longer, I will cite “Paternal Power is where minority makes the child incapable to manage his property” (Locke, 384). Very interesting that he chooses to use the active verb “to make,” even after he says specifically that “The Power of the Father doth not reach at all to the Property of the Child, which is only in his own disposing” (Locke, 381).), and also made me think about the topic of money that we touched upon in class. Money (or shiny rocks) is not a possession according to Locke, because it requires no energy (labor) to acquire, and yet we agree that it has great worth. I don’t think that money (or shiny rocks) would work for atheists if they were to seriously consider the implication of money as purely a representation of something else. The words on our dollar remind us that we, as a country (a Lockean one) believe in something of which we have no evidence, just as we believe that money (a piece of paper or a shiny rock, even a business card sized piece of plastic) exists. The fact that I can hand someone a dollar bill conveys to them the idea that I have labored at something, and the bill is a representation of that I posess (from my labor). However, my ownership of the bill itself could be disputed – but thanks to Locke and his tremendous influence on our fair government, that dispute (or war) would have a fathomable end.
posted by Rebecca at 2:04 PM
<< Home